Thursday, March 1, 2018
Debate Topics
Open this link and scroll down to the bottom where you will find a video on 12 different debate topics. If you are one of the first half of the class to respond to the blog, you may choose a topic and make a position statement on the topic of your choice. If you are blog poster #7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12, you will have to respond to a position statement already posted. Only one response per debate topic, so we will end up having a pro and a con argument for three different topics. IF YOU ARE A LATECOMER, you must take what is left. Only six topics can be discussed.
For your comments, you are to:
1. write a rebuttal to your partners position statement.(under their original post)
2. Respond to your partners rebuttal of your argument (under your original post)
3. Write a position summary(Under their original post)
Your blog response should be posted separately even if you are responding to a topic already posted, but you should begin the blog by stating your subject and position in all caps.
For example
COUNTRY LIFE IS BETTER THAN CITY LIFE-PRO
(Then continue your argument here).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere will be 6 topics, not 3. Spread the word. I cannot edit the blog and I only have my phone.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDogs vs Cats
ReplyDeletePets are a great way for families to grow together as they work to love and take care of the animal. There are many questions that go into the decision process -What animal is the easiest to take care of? Do I need to train the animal? How long will the animal live? Will taking care of the animal be expensive? These questions are normal, and lucky for familes, the answer is easy! Dogs are the go to animals! A dog is man's bestfriend! They are incredibly fun for kids and adults to exercise with, grow with, and have fun with. The best part is that there are many different breeds, so every family can find their perfect pup!
Dogs are encouraged to get exercise everyday which in return helps you get exercise! Daily walks or runs help you and the dog relieve energy and work off some pounds. Another benefit of dogs are the emotional effects. It is proven that dogs relieve stress in people of all ages. Also, dogs can help people with depression and other mental illnesses. The companionship is a great help for people who are alone or do not feel complete in their life.
They also teach children responsiblity. Children can learn that the dog needs feeding, let outside, and exercise everyday which helps them learn following a schedule. In my house, my brother and I are in charge of feeding and letting our dog, Bea, out to go to the bathroom. This helps Gabe and I realize our responsiblilties. Another benefit is they can be a protector. Certain breeds can be trained to be a protector of the family. Another breed can be trained to help families hunt. They can be an extra aid to the fun of hunting! These fuzzy animals are great for people for the physical and emotional support and help they bring.
Maddie, in the beginning of your argument, you asked a series of questions about the ease of caring for a pet, the level of training, and the expense associated with one, and proceed to state that “dogs are the go to animals.” However, with the prior questions in mind, how can this be true when dogs require more training, a greater responsibility for the owner(s) (who often have many other responsibilites and cannot provide the attention that a dog needs), and more expenses? Furthermore, you state that dogs relieve stress. However, cats have the ability to provide just the same service, oftentimes more effectively.
DeleteDogs having a requirement to be taken care of more is a positive thing, especially for families. It may seem overwhelming to have a dog, but as stated before it teaches people responsibility. It forces the owner to have a schedule which in the long run can have a positive effect on their life. Also, you stated that cats have the ability to provide the same service, which is true, but dogs do a better job at it. For example, at the recent school shooting in Florida, the school had dogs come into the school for the first week back to help the kids. Dogs show their emotions better than cats and can be taken outside and travel to help others.
DeleteOwning a cat compared to a dog is more beneficial to the well-being of the owner and does not require as much responsibility. Because we live in a fast-paced society where everyone — from the youthful to the elderly — has so much responsibility, many tasks to accomplish, and a rigid schedule, it seems to be a more feasible option to own a cat, which provides, oftentimes, a greater health benefit to the owner. Adding such a significant responsibility to the owner will only contribute to a greater level of stress in his or her life, which entirely negates the purpose of having a pet.
DeleteCLOSING
DeleteDogs are a beneficial pet to any family or person who needs some love. Dogs are proven to help with mental and emotional levels and can also improve the owner's physical state. The requirement that dogs need in order to survive is good for the owner to develop responsibilty and scheduling skills.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCOUNTRY LIFE IS BETTER THAN CITY LIFE-PRO
ReplyDeleteYou wake from a restful slumber, walk out to your kitchen, and pour yourself a nice hot cup of Joe. You walk out onto your balcony and hear...CAR HORNS, SIRENS, GUNFIRE ACCOMPANIED BY SCREAMING, AND FIGHTING NEIGHBORS! Living life surrounded by all of this, in addition the horrible stench of garbage and sewer vents, is no way to live. Isn’t it much more calming to step out onto your front porch and hear birds singing while breathing in a nice breath of fresh air? If anything, walking out directly into the hustle and bustle of the city while breathing in a big gasp of stale air would cause a great deal of stress before you even get to work, as many studies have proven.
Do you need a place to escape by yourself for some peace and quiet? Good luck doing that in your two-hundred square foot studio apartment. There is no place for you to go out and get some fresh air without taking a bus to a crowded park across town (which costs money), and with Jim and Karen arguing again next door and Priya and Sanjay across the hall cooking some exotic, foul-smelling Indian cuisine, how would you ever be able to relax. In the country, there are plenty of places you could go to relax and be completely alone with God’s creation without paying a penny. Need to blow off some steam? Go for a solitary walk in the woods! You can breathe in some nice, fresh air, listen to the birds, squirrels, and chipmunks scampering around, and just take nature in. I’m pretty sure skyscrapers don’t have the same calming effect. Given this, it makes much more sense to just live in the country. You’ll be much calmer, and overall happier.
Jarret, it appears that you focused a lot on the air and population; however, not all cities are the way you tried to describe them. Also, you saying, “Need to blow off some steam? Go for a solitary walk in the woods,” does not just correspond to the country. If you live in the city, you can go take a nice stroll in the park or even in the woods nearby. I completely disagree to “You’ll be much calmer, and overall happier.” I personally am much happier in the city because the environment is much more lively. Overall, city living is much more convenient, and it offers much more than we could ever imagine.
DeleteIs it really more convenient though? We are in the midst of a technological boom that includes a movement toward having everything we could ever imagine delivered right to our doors. Amazon and eBay are experimenting with delivery by drone to almost anywhere, and as it currently stands, those two companies already sell almost anything someone could want! And with companies like HelloFresh that ship grocery items right to your door no matter where you live, it’s really easier to have all the conveniences of a big city shipped right to your door. And about that walk in the woods: it’s free and you never have to deal with the city to get there. You’d likely have to take a bus or a cab to the park, because park-side real estate is extraordinarily expensive, and the safety of walking a long distance to a park is iffy. The woods are right there and it costs nothing to get there.
DeleteDrones are not going to be able to be flown to the middle of nowhere. These companies have only used them in large cities where the headquarters are because the drones can only be flown so far. You can not argue that woods are safer at all, they are actually equivalent to that “long distance to the park.” Most people actually get murdered in the woods since no one is there. Bad things happen almost always in the woods. For example, even the woods at Benzinger Park are bad news during the night. The amount of drug deals and things found in the woods there is unreal. So even in our friendly little town, it is not so friendly.
DeleteDOGS MAKE BETTER PETS THAN CATS - CON
ReplyDeleteSince the coining of the phrase “the dog is a man’s best friend” by Frederick the Great, much debate has ensued over which household pet makes for a greater companion: the dog or the cat. After assessing the responsibility required to care for the cat and the dog, as well as the form of companionship a cat provides, it became clear that a cat would make for a much better pet than a dog.
Due to the fact that we all live in a fast-paced, busy environment, having a cat as a pet is more convenient, as the responsibility associated with owning this household pet is much less compared to a dog. Upon buying a cat, the only responsibilities of the owner are to ensure that the pet is trained to use its litter box, always has proper nourishment, and is up-to-date with its visits to the vet. Beyond that, a cat requires little to no further “training” or maintenance. No need to be woken up at 2 in the morning, as your dog waits to go outside. No need to find a sitter for a one-day excursion. No need to vacuum 7 days a week to keep up on shedding. A cat can fend for itself and is, for the most part, independent of the owner, relieving a large portion of the stress and tension associated with having a pet.
Aside from the responsibility factor, the level of companionship provided by a cat is more convenient, stress-relieving, and perhaps more relatable, than that of a dog. While dogs are thought to be a more loyal, friendly, loving companion, this is simply not true. Cats provide for a level of companionship that actually substitutes that of a romantic partner, according to a Swiss study. Having a cat often releases stress after a long day at school or work. Sure, some might say the same of a dog. However, the purring of a cat does something more for the owner. First of all, the purring of a cat releases greater amounts of oxytocin, which brings about more pleasure and emotional support for the owner. It also has been found that this purring has the potential to heal an injury. Who knew you could get a companion and a physician all-in-one? Also, in regards to a cat’s companionship, there are sometimes when one just wants to be alone, and a cat understands that. While a dog seeks constant attention, a cat requires less, so if you had a bad day, and want to be alone for a while, he or she will be much more forgiving than a dog.
And, now, it’s important to address the stereotype that cats are only beneficial to single, and oftentimes, elderly women. But, if you’re a guy struggling to find a partner, a cat could very well become your best friend. A study in Britain showed that 90 percent of women surveyed thought that guys who owned cats were nicer and more “in-tune” with their emotions.
Clearly, cats really are a pet for everyone that bring on a lighter load of responsibility and provide for an emotional support system in times of stress and loneliness.
Isaac, your agruement seems to be based on the fact that cats require less work to take care of. Yet, it does not matter which animal is at the house, they do require a great amount of responsibilty. Most cats also shed just as much as dogs, trust me I have a cat. So why not have a big furry friend that can effectivley show its emotions towards the owner? The dog's tail wagging and constant jumping around shows its want for love. A lonely person can obtain the same amount of happiness and fullfillment in life with a dog.
DeleteI am aware that both a dog and a cat require a greater level of responsibility — I never really disputed that. However, I did make the point that cats do require a less amount of maintenance and attention, which a dog almost constantly requires. This constant need for attention can be time-consuming, especially when you need to finish something you’re working on or you just need some alone time. If you really want a pet, and you, like anyone else, need some alone time or need to accomplish something, then a cat is right for you.
DeleteCOUNTRY LIFE IS BETTER THAN CITY LIFE-CON
ReplyDeleteWho likes sitting around and being bored all the time? Absolutely no one that is for sure. Want to go shopping? The mall is only a few minutes from your house. What to hangout with your friends and have lots of fun? Take a trip to a movie theater or to a trampoline park. There are endless possibilities of things to do if you live in a city.
If you live out in the middle of nowhere, it may take a lengthy amount of time just to reach a simple destination, such as a grocery store. City living has many different modes of transportation that can make reaching any destination a breeze. You are also able to walk to so many places, and best of all, you can get your daily exercise in just by going to do a certain task. There is no need to spend lots of money on a car because you do not necessarily need one. It is more convenient to actually not have a car while living in the city. A city offers so many more job opportunities than the country does. If you live in the country, chances are you have become a farmer because it would cost too much money in gas to work somewhere else. Also, the jobs are higher paying in the city. With the money you earn, you can live in a beautiful home. These homes are more expensive since they are in the city, but the high paying job makes this way of living possible. Those who are young tend to prefer the city more than the country. This is because they can go and be surrounded by new people every single day. It is very fun being able to constantly interact with different people everyday. The country life might be best for you if you are retired, but that is about it.
Bethany, your arguments are relatively null. I will give you that there is more to do in a big city, but otherwise, the same services can be found in a rural area such as ours. You claim that alternative transportation methods are only available in a city, but look at services like ATA, which operate scheduled bus routes throughout our rural region and will send a van to get you if you live out in the boonies and off of their scheduled routes. Regarding getting exercise by daily activities, you can get that in a rural area as well. You can go for a walk in the woods; you can get exercise by push-mowing your lawn; you can walk down and get your mail at the end of the country lane. And while it may be convenient to not have a car while you are IN the city, what about when you go away? It makes sense to fly to someplace that would be hundreds upon hundreds of miles away, but what about somewhere about 100 miles away? It costs around $400 roundtrip to fly to DuBois from Pittsburgh and then back. You could rent a car, but that will cost about the same if you rent a car (likely a subcompact car with a stick shift) from Enterprise if you don’t opt for roadside assistance and insurance, which are worthwhile investments. And that is if they’ll even rent to someone under 25, which they usually don’t. ZipCar, a service geared toward young urbanites, charges around $50 per hour of use, but it does include insurance and roadside assistance. I was appalled by your argument about farming. That’s not the only way to make money in a rural area. Do you really think our rural economy is based on farming? Take a look at all the plants in our area! And while city jobs pay more, your cost of living will likely outweigh the bonus. You’ll pay as much for a studio apartment per month as you would a loan payment for a small house on an acre of land in the country. There’s less bang for your buck in the city. And finally, the country is good for more people than just the elderly. People with asthma or breathing issues would likely appreciate the clean air.
DeleteYes, I agree with some of what you are saying, but my point is not that. There are many more different modes of transportation in the city. I understand that there are quite a few here such as riding a bike, walking, the ATA bus, and driving a car; however, there are many upon many more in the city. You can take the train, subway, bike, drive your own car, Uber, taxi, and the options are literally endless. If you are so worried about not having a car and being able to get out of the city, then just buy a car. You still can drive it in the city without a problem because most people still do own one that way when they need to go out of town they easily can. I do agree that you can get exercise anywhere, but there’s more walking that can be done in the city since there are more places to go. Also, I was not taking about a rural area and farming, I’m talking about a country where there are literally nothing but fields for miles and miles. The problem is, we did not picture the same area for this topic. Factories do consume a large portion of our area so would that not make pollution in the air?? Technically, you are saying that small areas such as Johnsonburg and Warren do not have pollution in the air. The last time I checked, their air is absolutely disgusting, and their small little town smells horrendous! If I had asthma or breathing issues I definitely would not want to live in that area at all. And no, the cost of living will not outweigh the bonus because in the end, it all equals out. Since you make more money in the city, obviously living will have to be more expensive. In a small little town, chances are you do not make as much money which is why living is not as expensive. The city is seriously much better than living in the country could ever be.
DeleteI still think the country is the place to be. With the convenience of companies like Amazon, eBay, and HelloFresh that bring big city conveniences to your front door, there’s no missing all the shopping conveniences of a big city. And although many conveniences are available on a smaller scale, they’re still there. And since the only way around in a country region is, according to you, by car, there’s a simple solution to escaping the pollution of an industrial town like Johnsonburg: move to the neighboring town and drive to work. The country is much better than the city, for nature is literally at your back door and space abounds.
DeleteSMOKERS SHOULD PAY A HEALTH TAX: PRO
ReplyDeleteAmerica is all about being pro-choice. People’s bodies are their own, and they should get to decide what happens to them. That is why people support abortion, is it not? However, choices affect others. This often seems to be forgotten in the “the Constitution says that I have freedom and I’ll do whatever the hell I want” mindset. Smoking is a choice. It is an incredibly dangerous and unhealthy choice, but it is still a choice. Second hand smoke has been shown by countless studies to be extremely detrimental to those affected by it. Many of the health risks associated with it are often related to those of actually smoking. Furthermore, pollution and clean air are becoming harder and harder to separate. The air in some places actually has a visible film because of the amount of pollution it withholds. While smoking may not contribute to this majorly, it certainly does not help as efforts are made to clean this up. It is completely unfair for others to suffer because of a stupid choice made by someone either that they know or who is completely irrelevant to their lives. Why would people not be fined for worsening these conditions? Fines for releasing pollution from a point-source without proper permits can be seriously fined and punished. While pollution from smoking is not as severe as these toxins and emissions, it is not safe regardless. All products like cigarettes have labels on them describing the dangers of using them. How could that possibly be seen as an indication of a healthy lifestyle choice? If others are being affected by these toxic chemicals releases into the air, they should not be forced to pay for it too. Seriously. How would that make sense? People who get cancer, emphysema, or other illnesses from these types of products know that they only have themselves to blame for their unfortunate situation. Imagine living your whole life eating right, exercising, etcetera, and getting sick because someone else decided to make that one unhealthy choice for you. Is that fair?
Yes smoking is a choice, but the FDA makes this choice available for them to choose. If the FDA is responsible for giving them the ability to smoke, they should be paying, not the smokers.
DeleteThis, however, is like saying that the government that allows guns should have to pay for breaking up the animals killed with those guns. They allowed the sale and people used them, so they should have to clean up the mess. Does that make sense? People are independent and make their own choices. Just because they can do something does not mean that they should, and, frankly, others should not have to literally pay because of them.
DeleteThe government and FDA has the potential to make major changes to cigarettes, including what is in them, how much they cost, etc. Obviously they will not get rid of cigarettes as a whole, but they could make more regulations making them less harmful and alter the cost to make them economically complement the proposed tax. Since they have the power to make change for the better, they should be held responsible.
DeleteSMOKERS SHOULD PAY A HEALTH TAX: CON
ReplyDeleteSmoking has become very relevant over the years, which brings into question a health tax being imposed. The tax would be put into action because of the effects smoking has on the environment and on those who are near smokers and inhale second-hand smoke. We cannot sit here and debate over whether or not smoking has effects on the environment and the body, that is factual evidence. However, we can debate on who would be responsible for paying this tax.
Although some feel that the smokers should be responsible for paying the tax since they are the ones smoking, I feel that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should be responsible for paying this tax. On June 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, giving the U.S. FDA comprehensive authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products. Since they have control over regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products, they should pay the health tax because ultimately they have control over the business. If have control over the industry, they have the ability to help change the issues with the air pollution from cigarette smoke and the amount of second-hand smoke being inhaled. If they are control, why would they not pay it since they have the ability to make change?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis was a really hard topic to be on the con side of, but Hoh did a great job! Your facts made the argument compelling and as logical as it could be. Overall, repercussions for smoking should not fall on to anyone but the people who caused the issue. We as a society must place blame where it is needed and not try to spread out the damage to those who are completely separated from the situation. Taxes for smoking should fall directly on those who purchase the products in question.
DeleteResponse
DeleteThis does raise a good point, however I don’t necessarily think it would “spread out the damage to those are completely separated from the situation.” If you are referring to the FDA as those separated from the situation, that would make no sense because they are the ones in charge of the regulations.
VIDEO GAMES CAN BE EDUCATIONAL
ReplyDeleteVideo games have been around for a long time. While their main purpose is entertainment, they also have an educational focus. While it may not seem like it, video games can be used in many ways to educate. Take rehabilitation for example. If something happens such as a stroke, and they lose a significant amount of coordination, video games can be used to help with that. This same process if often used by athletes to improve their coordination. Another example could be for young education. There are many games that serve the purpose to educate young children. I know this for a fact because I played a lot of these games as a young child. These games are practically available on every platform. You can find them on the App Store, you can find them on consoles, and you can find them on the computer. Another example of education through video games, is the use of a special game that will train someone for their career. For example, say someone is going into the medical field to be a surgeon. Why waste so much money resources for them to practice, when all you need to do is let them practice virtually. Yes, at some point the process would have to change, but wouldn’t that help so much? To already know what to do because of the practice that a game could offer would help immensely. With all of this being available, why wouldn’t anyone take advantage of all of this to help improve their child, or even themselves?
REBUTTAL
DeleteI think that some games can be used for rehabilitation, but some people can cheat their ways out of it. For the Wii, people can sit down and make motions when they are supposed to be moving their entire body, defeating the purpose of the game. As for the younger generations, addiction could be a really serious condition from playing these games at such a young age. Often times children throw tantrums because they want their game at all times. I watched earlier this week, when parents let their children have video games for two days (without regulation) the kids spent 40+ hours with it. Then when it was time to take the devices away, tantrums came. Children are spoiled by these video games, I think there are better ways for education. Also for professions, from recently visiting a medical school, I can say that all those devices are provided for educational purposes. Even while job shadowing, doctors will allow you to fiddle around with such devices in the real world instead of on an iPad.
I do think you give very good points, but I just have a different opinion than you. I believe that video games are more bad than good because of the violence and possible body damage. The way society has changed in the past decades has changed virtual reality games and how they used to be made. I believe that video games are too detrimental to children and society.
DeleteSUMMARY ^^^
DeleteRESPONSE
DeleteI do think you made some very good points, at least from how you said you made due with what you had. Yeah, people can cheat on these rehabilitation games, but then it’s their fault, you get out what you put in. As for the job shadowing with doctors and such, that is just something I read somewhere a while ago that i decided to throw in, so I do agree with you there that hands on experience is probably best. The tantrums you speak of I believe stems from bad parenting though. As you said, we both just have different opinions, however i think you did a good job defending your stance on the matter at hand.
VIDEO GAMES CAN BE EDUCATIONAL- CON
ReplyDeleteSome people think video games are okay for children, but they can send bad messages and give off suggestive themes. Video games are rated by how old their audience should be. Many times, parents give in to kids younger than the rated game, mostly violent R-rated games. Early exposure to such violent acts can surely have an effect upon on the brain and proper thinking processes. With all the gun violence surrounding today’s era, could some of the reason be behind seeing a video game of people shooting others? Video games also take away time from family life and other social events. People will spend many hours behind a television talking smack on their opponents and getting frustrated when they lose. Parents will have to yell repeatedly to their children to have them come out of their rooms for simple events such as dinner. Backtalk and other insubordinate actions may prosper from such events. Along with other insubordinate acts, such video games as Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row have inappropriate themes, often times suggesting sexual acts or favors. Even weapons can be sexual, hinting to the fact that in Saints Row a weapon can be a dildo on a stick. Yay! Let’s give this to my child and hope other ideas aren’t made. Also when a child sits in front of the TV for hours upon hours, vision can be impaired. Staring endlessly into a screen can harm vision for any age, but especially younger generations. This certainly isn’t something I want my child to have, would you want your child to have it?
REBUTTAL
DeleteI agree completely with you that some games are terrible, specifically the grand theft auto and the saints row games. However, those games have a core audience, and that audience is not children. Children should not come into contact with games of those sort, and if they do it is not the games fault, but rather the parents. There are plenty of games out there with an E for everyone rating that would be great for them. Kids should by no means be able to play those games, and it is the responsibility of the parents to keep them out of their kids hands. Would you let your child go see 50 shades of grey? Of course not, so don’t let them play grand theft auto either. The parents could also monitor their children’s screen time to keep their eyesight keen, limiting them to only a few hours a day of video games. This would also eat them out of their rooms and hopefully get them outdoors. Video games are also the scape goat of all the gun violence today. All of this gun violence was around before these games, why aren’t fingers being pointed at action movies? But no, let’s just blame the easy target. In the end, the parent needs to respect the rating on the game cover. If that label says M for mature audiences, then the child should not be allowed to get the game. If they do let them get the game full of dildo weapons, that is the parent’s fault, not the game’s fault.
SUMMARY
DeleteAll in all, I believe that video games can be educational. Sure, there is a few rotten apples in the bunch, but with the right moderation the bad games could be avoided completely. Not only can kids learn with them, but adults too. Not only could kids learn, but they could make friends as well. Take the latest craze for the game Fortnite for example. Kids could play online with friends, and even meet new ones through the common interest. Video games could be extremely educational, but it relies on us to make that happen.
RESPONSE
DeleteHonestly my argument is based off my boyfriend. I do think games are violent from the commercials I see on tv, but I’ve never played a video game like Xbox or such in my life. I don’t really know much about them but I made due with what information I did have. I believe your argument was very good and I could definitely side with you for some games.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY FOR INTERNET - PRO
ReplyDeleteSince the beginning of time our world has been changing. On January 1, 1983, research began to form the internet. Then in 1990, the World Wide Web was created. The internet has become extremely prominent in today’s society. It is used for email, shopping, travel, news, and long distance communication via FaceTime or Skype. People used to have to wait days before receiving mail from a friend, and now it is almost instantaneous. Most of our life revolves around the use of internet. Online banking has been introduced to help save time and make saving and spending money faster and easier. The internet is also used by students. Students can use the internet to look up topics and research for english papers and also to look up videos to help learn the material in class or for a small refresher. Teachers are also switching to online forms to turn in classroom assignments, send information over email to communicate to students even after the school day, and to teach lessons. Paying for all of this convince seems odd. Most of the change that happened in our world is for the good. Net neutrality is where all users on the World Wide Web have equal opportunity concerning access and view ability. Our government has denied the repeal for net neutrality multiple times. If it is repealed, the administrators and service providers would be able to control what certain people can see on their websites. In order to see certain content, you will have to pay for it. Also, these providers would be able to slow down their websites and force users to pay for it to go faster. This isn’t fair. The internet was created for all to use fairly. With the educational value and confidence the internet offers, nobody should have to pay for the internet.
Sami, I think that while you bring up good points, your argument is flawed in that it makes it seem like whatever is good and helpful should be free, which in a capitalistic government is against the ideology of the government. Cancer treatments and many other medical procedures are helpful and live saving, but cost a fortune. The true cost of these procedures is a whole other matter. WiFi and internet should be paid for because of precedent with things that are arguably more important and vital. Internet has become a major part of our lives, I agree. But because other things that are very helpful are bought, this should be as well.
DeleteResponse
DeleteI agree with you that most things are more important than the internet, but that does not mean it should be paid for whatsoever. Most of the content on the internet is not published by the government which means that the government should not have any control over it. The government brought up paying for things online which made these big companies such as Snapchat to believe they should have users pay for the service. Companies like these were made to be free for many people to use their services. When you say, “WiFi and internet should be paid for because of precedent with things that are arguably more important and vital,” you make no sense. You say that things are much more important than the internet so this means that the internet isn’t important. But then you say it should still be paid for. If you do not think that the internet is important, then it should be free.
WE SHOULDNT HAVE TO PAY FOR INTERNET - CON
ReplyDeleteThough the internet has become a vital part of our daily lives, it is ludicrous to claim that internet should be free. In a capitalistic government, we gain services through exchange of money or goods. Simple as that. Cancer treatments, medical procedures, cars, and many many more things that are helpful in everyday life or extraordinary circumstances are not free, not in the least. If this is so, why should internet be free? Your payment for Internet helps to ensure quality service, as the companies need to pay upkeep on services and maintenance costs. This all comes together to one conclusion: Internet should not be free.
The internet was made for its users not for the government to control. Most of the websites created such as YouTube, social media accounts, email, and Google we’re made for free access to the users. You say that “ we gain services through exchange”, but these services were made to bring in money. Yes cancer treatment is helpful but not free, but this treatment and other medical supplies were made to be bought. Like I said before, most of the internet websites were made for users to experience things for free. Also, quality service can be obtained through free websites. Khan Academy is a free learning service that offers educational tools such as math problems and quizzes as well as videos for SAT prep and much more. This whole website exemplifies quality service. Internet should be free because that is what it was made for.
DeleteClosing
DeleteInternet should be free to the general public because that was the original intent when creating it. Although the internet is less important than other things, it is still a prominent part of our society and should be free. It offers free services such as email and social media and provides convenient for its users. Paying for internet will destroy these convenient ways of communication and learning tools.
HAVING TOO MUCH MONEY IS A BAD THING- PRO?
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows money doesn’t buy happiness. There are millions of people out there with millions of dollars that they have no idea what to do with. It is continuously being wasted. With money, we should use it for good causes. Many times people with too much money do not donate some of it to a good cause, while some others may. With a lot of money comes corruption. With the right amount of money someone could pay another to do just about anything they want them to do. For example, some people use their money to pay off someone who has something against them. Also, some people pay others to do dirty deeds for them such as killing someone else. People with a large amount of money often feel empty. They think the money is great at first, but when they see that it’s all they have then they feel sadness. All in all, having too much money can negatively affect not only that person’s like but the people they surround themselves with
While I understand your reasoning, I must make a few contentions. You suggested that money can be used to bribe people to prevent them from revealing criminal acts. While money may be involved, it is the criminal act that is the true evil here. There are far too many good people with wealth for there to be a solid, consistent correlation between having money and being bad. People like Bill Gates, the Pengulas, and Mark Zuckerberg use their money for good, along with many others.
DeleteResponse
DeleteWhile some people may use their money for good, many others use if for bad deeds. I see what you mean from your points but I still think that money brings about sadness and emptiness.
HAVING TOO MUCH MONEY IS A BAD THING — CON
ReplyDeleteWhere does happiness come from? It is a question that people constantly ask themselves as they progress through life. Well, as well over a half a million people can attest, it does not come from a lack of material gain. Those five hundred thousand people are the homeless of America. Those people are not happy with their lot in life, and they have good reason for it. Instead, take Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the US, and leading a very happy life. He often donates to charity foundations, pushes scientific and technological advancement forward, and does his best to be altruistic in his pursuits. It is not the presence of money that makes for a bad life, it is the misapplication of money. Those who hoard everything they own to themselves, without giving to others. It is not too much money, it is corruption. Corruption is what leads to unhappiness, not money. There are altruistic rich people who lead happy lives. If anything, having more money allows for more opportunities to give, and a better life overall. A homeless person has very little left to give, and does not have the opportunity to experience what the world has to offer. A rich person can give what they own liberally, and lead a financially stable life for themselves and their families. More money is not bad, corruption is bad.
I understand your points but I believe the money is what can cause corruption. People without money would never be able to become corrupt without money. I understand that people get happiness from material things but I believe that true happiness is gained from the love of the people around you. Money cannot always bring about happiness. Homelessness is on the total other end of the spectrum because they have no money at all. I think money is necessary but too much can cause problems.
DeletePeople can easily become corrupt without money. Look at just about every crime ever committed. Most of them are done without money as a motivator. Shooters and bombers are not concerned with their bank accounts. They only care about their body count. Money and corruption are separate entities that can exist without the other. Happiness may not come from money, but neither does corruption.
DeleteThere is a fine line that exists in the world. It is the line between goodness and corruption. Money may contribute to bringing that line closer, but it is the actions of the individual that determines wether they are corrupt or generous.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete